Wall for strong gun control

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Trump is claiming to want to protect us with this wall. Well nothing would protect us more than some strong gun control. Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control. Trade the wall for strong gun control!

One is a constitutional right. The other is not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have gun control when only impact the law abiding citizen? Criminals could care less about gun control, that's why they are criminals

-Geaux

Funny claim given how many fewer shootings there are in countries with strong gun control.

And yet again: what constitutes ‘strong’ gun control?

While we wait for a response, consider the fact that comparing the United States to other Western liberal democracies fails as a fallacy.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

 

[eagle1462010]

Funny how every country capable of enforcing laws with strong gun control have much lower homicide rates than us. Really comparing us to Mexico and Jamaica? Law enforcement in mexico is so corrupt they get disarmed.

Law enforcement in the United States is considered pretty corrupt by the left, so how are we so much different than Mexico?

We have police reportedly going out and killing people for being black, like in Ferguson and Baltimore. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency has been compared to the Nazis by distinguished leftist congresspeople.

Mexico is the biggest source of immigrants for the United States, they are importing their culture, language and cuisine here, unimpeded too, without the Wall.

Without a doubt, Mexico is the best comparison for America.

Law enforcement shoots a lot of people because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of these things happen often in countries with strong gun control.

Plenty of people get shot in Mexico, and they have very strict gun control. Ditto in Africa, where America also has a lot of immigrants from

BigBrain hasn't yet figured out that guns don't kill people, they simply prevent tyranny. For example when the government proposes to replace its own population by that of the third world, people march out with ARs and that's the end of that.

Meanwhile, as Irish government has proposed to do the same to keep their con going, no one can do a shit. They are screwed, good bye Ireland.

You hit on it

2006 Fence Law already made the land available............LOL

Trump isn't seizing shit. LOL

Schumer, Pelosi and Bush did that over a decade ago

 

[elongobardi]

Trump is claiming to want to protect us with this wall. Well nothing would protect us more than some strong gun control. Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control. Trade the wall for strong gun control!

Another clueless liberal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Polishprince]

Funny how every country capable of enforcing laws with strong gun control have much lower homicide rates than us. Really comparing us to Mexico and Jamaica? Law enforcement in mexico is so corrupt they get disarmed.

Funny how every country capable of enforcing laws with strong gun control have much lower homicide rates than us.

Funny how they never were able to enforce the strong gun control here in Chicago.

Yes Chicago has no walls and it's surrounded by weak gun laws. Most the guns come from outside of Chicago.

Criminals don't obey laws, that's the point. Gun control only disarms the Law Abiders, and makes them sitting ducks for the criminal element.

If they are just sitting ducks, why are homicide rates in countries with gun control a small fraction of ours?

Lots of legal ownership guarantees lots of illegal ownership. Lots of illegal ownership guarantees lots of homicides.

If they are just sitting ducks, why are homicide rates in countries with gun control a small fraction of ours?

View attachment 239803

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Do the countries above us on this list have gun control?

Venezuela, which is #2 on the list, has extreme Gun Control as well as one of the most liberal states on the planet.

 

[elongobardi]

Funny how every country capable of enforcing laws with strong gun control have much lower homicide rates than us.

Funny how they never were able to enforce the strong gun control here in Chicago.

Yes Chicago has no walls and it's surrounded by weak gun laws. Most the guns come from outside of Chicago.

Criminals don't obey laws, that's the point. Gun control only disarms the Law Abiders, and makes them sitting ducks for the criminal element.

If they are just sitting ducks, why are homicide rates in countries with gun control a small fraction of ours?

Lots of legal ownership guarantees lots of illegal ownership. Lots of illegal ownership guarantees lots of homicides.

If they are just sitting ducks, why are homicide rates in countries with gun control a small fraction of ours?

View attachment 239803

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Do the countries above us on this list have gun control?

Venezuela, which is #2 on the list, has extreme Gun Control as well as one of the most liberal states on the planet.

Take the guns from legal owning citizens. Doesn’t stop the bad guys from getting guns. You liberals are really too stupid to figure it out. No common sense. That’s why on my department we hated book smart guys. No common sense or street smarts. They’re more dangerous then the criminals. Almost as dangerous as liberals and there Democratic politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackhawk]

What type of gun control would that be? It seems it would very hard to come up with gun control measures we don't already have that wouldn't infringe on people's Second Amendment rights as I have posted before the better deal is wall funding for a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers both sides get something they want badly and the shutdown ends win win.

 

[Rigby5]

They're not the ones who hate us.

I don't care if illegals love us or hate us, they have to go.

Europe is taking in all the Syrians, Libyans and Iraqis for us

For us? what does that mean?

How can you not know what that means ?
Our wars create more terrorists. That's as simply as it can be put and if
you can't see that, then you just don't want to.

How can you not know what that means ?

Because they aren't doing it "for us".
We didn't ask them to do it.
Doing it isn't doing us a favor.

Why don't you explain what it means?

Our wars create more terrorists.

Really? I don't see lots of German, Japanese, North Korean or Vietnamese terrorists. Do you?

That's as simply as it can be put

The word you need is simplistic.

Your claims are simplistic and ignorant.

Yes we did ask the Europeans to take in Mideast refugees for us, and they are doing us a favor because otherwise they would be trying to come to the US instead.
When you attack and occupy a county, like we did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., you become legally responsible for refugees you created, under international law.

Pearl Harbor was essentially a terrorist attack. The only reason there were not more is that the US was so distant and hard to get to.
It is cheaper to get to the US these days, so now you will get more terrorist attacks if you cause harm like war.

Yes we did ask the Europeans to take in Mideast refugees for us,

Who asked? Obama and Hillary after they fucked up Libya?

In that case the Europeans were idiots (especially Merkel) for accepting millions of low-skilled, hostile "refugees".

and they are doing us a favor because otherwise they would be trying to come to the US instead.

They should definitely try to bring their crappy boats to the US. The ones who make it should be refused and sent back.

When you attack and occupy a county, like we did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., you become legally responsible for refugees you created, under international law.

Link?

It is cheaper to get to the US these days, so now you will get more terrorist attacks if you cause harm like war.

Sounds like an excellent reason to eliminate travel from Muslim countries.

Yes it was Obama and Hillary.
Look up Geneva Conventions.

 

[dudmuck]

Law enforcement in the United States is considered pretty corrupt by the left, so how are we so much different than Mexico?

We have police reportedly going out and killing people for being black, like in Ferguson and Baltimore. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency has been compared to the Nazis by distinguished leftist congresspeople.

Mexico is the biggest source of immigrants for the United States, they are importing their culture, language and cuisine here, unimpeded too, without the Wall.

Without a doubt, Mexico is the best comparison for America.

Law enforcement shoots a lot of people because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of these things happen often in countries with strong gun control.

Plenty of people get shot in Mexico, and they have very strict gun control. Ditto in Africa, where America also has a lot of immigrants from

BigBrain hasn't yet figured out that guns don't kill people, they simply prevent tyranny. For example when the government proposes to replace its own population by that of the third world, people march out with ARs and that's the end of that.

Meanwhile, as Irish government has proposed to do the same to keep their con going, no one can do a shit. They are screwed, good bye Ireland.

You hit on it

2006 Fence Law already made the land available............LOL

Trump isn't seizing shit. LOL

Schumer, Pelosi and Bush did that over a decade ago

Oh yea, then why they fight it in texas?

Ted Cruz ran ads against Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign saying that eminent domain is a “fancy term for politicians seizing private property to enrich the fat cats who bankroll them—like Trump.”

 

[Asclepias]

Why have gun control when only impact the law abiding citizen? Criminals could care less about gun control, that's why they are criminals

-Geaux

Funny claim given how many fewer shootings there are in countries with strong gun control.

And yet again: what constitutes ‘strong’ gun control?

While we wait for a response, consider the fact that comparing the United States to other Western liberal democracies fails as a fallacy.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

Other countries have violent minority populations so no.

 

[easyt65]

Trump is claiming to want to protect us with this wall. Well nothing would protect us more than some strong gun control. Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control. Trade the wall for strong gun control!

So on top of illegally running federal law-violating illegal cop killer-protecting Sanctuary Cities snowflakes want to violate the Constitution in exchange for the wall?

 

[easyt65]

Trump is claiming to want to protect us with this wall. Well nothing would protect us more than some strong gun control. Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control. Trade the wall for strong gun control!

Na, not really

The fact that criminals are the only ones committing gun crimes has escaped snowflakes, who believe disarming those who obey the law will stop the criminals from illegally using guns...

Bwuhahahaha....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They're not the ones who hate us.

I don't care if illegals love us or hate us, they have to go.

Europe is taking in all the Syrians, Libyans and Iraqis for us

For us? what does that mean?

How can you not know what that means ?
Our wars create more terrorists. That's as simply as it can be put and if
you can't see that, then you just don't want to.

How can you not know what that means ?

Because they aren't doing it "for us".
We didn't ask them to do it.
Doing it isn't doing us a favor.

Why don't you explain what it means?

Our wars create more terrorists.

Really? I don't see lots of German, Japanese, North Korean or Vietnamese terrorists. Do you?

That's as simply as it can be put

The word you need is simplistic.

Your claims are simplistic and ignorant.

Yes we did ask the Europeans to take in Mideast refugees for us, and they are doing us a favor because otherwise they would be trying to come to the US instead.
When you attack and occupy a county, like we did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., you become legally responsible for refugees you created, under international law.

Pearl Harbor was essentially a terrorist attack. The only reason there were not more is that the US was so distant and hard to get to.
It is cheaper to get to the US these days, so now you will get more terrorist attacks if you cause harm like war.

Yes we did ask the Europeans to take in Mideast refugees for us,

Who asked? Obama and Hillary after they fucked up Libya?

In that case the Europeans were idiots (especially Merkel) for accepting millions of low-skilled, hostile "refugees".

and they are doing us a favor because otherwise they would be trying to come to the US instead.

They should definitely try to bring their crappy boats to the US. The ones who make it should be refused and sent back.

When you attack and occupy a county, like we did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., you become legally responsible for refugees you created, under international law.

Link?

It is cheaper to get to the US these days, so now you will get more terrorist attacks if you cause harm like war.

Sounds like an excellent reason to eliminate travel from Muslim countries.

Yes it was Obama and Hillary.
Look up Geneva Conventions.

Look up Geneva Conventions.

You made the claim, you look them up.

Post your proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have gun control when only impact the law abiding citizen? Criminals could care less about gun control, that's why they are criminals

-Geaux

Funny claim given how many fewer shootings there are in countries with strong gun control.

And yet again: what constitutes ‘strong’ gun control?

While we wait for a response, consider the fact that comparing the United States to other Western liberal democracies fails as a fallacy.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

Other countries have violent minority populations so no.

Post your list of more peaceful countries, we can see what their minority populations look like.

 

[Asclepias]

Why have gun control when only impact the law abiding citizen? Criminals could care less about gun control, that's why they are criminals

-Geaux

Funny claim given how many fewer shootings there are in countries with strong gun control.

And yet again: what constitutes ‘strong’ gun control?

While we wait for a response, consider the fact that comparing the United States to other Western liberal democracies fails as a fallacy.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

Other countries have violent minority populations so no.

Post your list of more peaceful countries, we can see what their minority populations look lie.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace. It was about shootings so dont try to move the goal posts.

Take Ghana for example. Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funny claim given how many fewer shootings there are in countries with strong gun control.

And yet again: what constitutes ‘strong’ gun control?

While we wait for a response, consider the fact that comparing the United States to other Western liberal democracies fails as a fallacy.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

Other countries have violent minority populations so no.

Post your list of more peaceful countries, we can see what their minority populations look lie.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace. It was about shootings so dont try to move the goal posts.

Take Ghana for example. Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace.

Change the words "more peaceful" into "less violent" if that will help your panties unwad.

Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

Link?

 

[Asclepias]

And yet again: what constitutes ‘strong’ gun control?

While we wait for a response, consider the fact that comparing the United States to other Western liberal democracies fails as a fallacy.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

Other countries have violent minority populations so no.

Post your list of more peaceful countries, we can see what their minority populations look lie.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace. It was about shootings so dont try to move the goal posts.

Take Ghana for example. Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace.

Change the words "more peaceful" into "less violent" if that will help your panties unwad.

Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

Link?

No I wont change any of the words to help you move your goal post.

The information is freely available on the internet if you doubt me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are fewer shootings in other countries because those societies are considerably less violent than American society, having little to do with the availability of guns.

Could it have something to do with our more violent minority populations?

Other countries have violent minority populations so no.

Post your list of more peaceful countries, we can see what their minority populations look lie.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace. It was about shootings so dont try to move the goal posts.

Take Ghana for example. Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

Your claim had nothing to do with peace.

Change the words "more peaceful" into "less violent" if that will help your panties unwad.

Its ranked #167 in the world and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes.

Link?

No I wont change any of the words to help you move your goal post.

The information is freely available on the internet if you doubt me.

No I wont change any of the words to help you move your goal post.

Changing the words moved the unmoved goal posts back. So you can stop whining.

The information is freely available on the internet if you doubt me.

You made a claim, post your source.

And speaking of claims.....

and the US is ranked #1 for gun crimes

NPR says you're full of shit.

Take countries with the top indicators of socioeconomic success — income per person and average education level, for instance. The United States ranks ninth in the world among them, bested only by the likes of Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, Andorra, Canada and Finland.

Those countries all also enjoy low rates of gun violence, but the U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016. That was eight times higher than the rate in Canada, which had .48 deaths per 100,000 people — and 27 times higher than the one in Denmark, which had .14 deaths per 100,000.

Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other Countries

 

[eagle1462010]

Law enforcement shoots a lot of people because they themselves are shot a lot. Neither of these things happen often in countries with strong gun control.

Plenty of people get shot in Mexico, and they have very strict gun control. Ditto in Africa, where America also has a lot of immigrants from

BigBrain hasn't yet figured out that guns don't kill people, they simply prevent tyranny. For example when the government proposes to replace its own population by that of the third world, people march out with ARs and that's the end of that.

Meanwhile, as Irish government has proposed to do the same to keep their con going, no one can do a shit. They are screwed, good bye Ireland.

You hit on it

2006 Fence Law already made the land available............LOL

Trump isn't seizing shit. LOL

Schumer, Pelosi and Bush did that over a decade ago

Oh yea, then why they fight it in texas?

Ted Cruz ran ads against Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign saying that eminent domain is a “fancy term for politicians seizing private property to enrich the fat cats who bankroll them—like Trump.”

And yet he did nothing to stop it after the 2006 Fence act. LOL

That was a political show for votes........if his district needs land to build a new interstate he'd do it.

 

[dudmuck]

Plenty of people get shot in Mexico, and they have very strict gun control. Ditto in Africa, where America also has a lot of immigrants from

BigBrain hasn't yet figured out that guns don't kill people, they simply prevent tyranny. For example when the government proposes to replace its own population by that of the third world, people march out with ARs and that's the end of that.

Meanwhile, as Irish government has proposed to do the same to keep their con going, no one can do a shit. They are screwed, good bye Ireland.

You hit on it

2006 Fence Law already made the land available............LOL

Trump isn't seizing shit. LOL

Schumer, Pelosi and Bush did that over a decade ago

Oh yea, then why they fight it in texas?

Ted Cruz ran ads against Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign saying that eminent domain is a “fancy term for politicians seizing private property to enrich the fat cats who bankroll them—like Trump.”

And yet he did nothing to stop it after the 2006 Fence act. LOL

That was a political show for votes........if his district needs land to build a new interstate he'd do it.

hint; it'll protect mexico.